228 Prof. H. G. Seeley on a 



associated a tibia and fibula, indicating long and slender hind 

 legs ; but I am not aware of any evidence of association, and 

 am disposed to refer the limb-bones to the crocodilian genus 

 Theriosuchus. On at least three other occasions references 

 were made to these teeth. In the Pala3ontograpliical Society's 

 volume for 1861 they are said to be like teeth of Megalo- 

 sanrus^ finely serrated back and front, and attached by partial 

 anchylosis to the inner side of an alveolar wall. Of this 

 character I have not seen any evidence ; but T have not had 

 the opportunity of examining the original specimens. In 

 1854 Nuthetes was said to differ from Megnhsauvus in showing 

 no trace of alveolar divisions for the teeth. This may be 

 quite true, and yet not bear tlie construction that the teeth 

 were not in sockets, for the bones of the jaw are extremely 

 thin and have a denseness and thinness which are only known 

 in bones of Ornithosauria and Saurischian reptiles, and 

 genera like Aristosuchus. Sir Richard Owen further states 

 that the thickest part of the crown is not the middle, but is 

 nearer the anterior border, as in Varanus and Megalosawus. 



In Sir R. Owen's ' Paleontology ' the knov/n facts are 

 summarized and the fossil grouped under the Lacertilia 

 (second ed., 1861, p. 307) and described as a carnivorous or 

 insectivorous lizard. 



Subsequently, in the Palteontographical Society's volume 

 for 1879, further remains discovered by Mr. Beckles are 

 figured (pi. ii.) and described. The genus is grouped with 

 the Crocodilia, and the teeth (p. 16) are said to show an 

 excavation or longitudinal depression on the side of the base. 

 In the British Museum Catalogue of Foss. Rept. pt. i., 1888, 

 Mr. Lydekker groups the genus as " ordinal position un- 

 certain," placing it after the animals which are massed 

 together as Dinosauria, and remarking that the teeth are 

 more like those of dinosaurs than lizards. 



The jaws indicate a very small animal, being (as stated by 

 Sir R. Owen) in the fragments preserved only 6 lines deep, 

 while the largest fragment of jaw is 1\ inch long. I have no 

 doubt, if ordinal affinities can be inferred from teeth, that these 

 animals are Saurischian and nearly allied to Streptospondylus, 

 Megalosaurus, and Aristosuchus. The teeth are essentially 

 diminutive forms of a Megalosaur. Tliis identification is 

 based upon the sliape of the crown, the condition of its 

 surface-enamel, the serrations at the anterior and posterior 

 margins of the crown, and the general form of the root, which, 

 however, is shoiter than in Megalosaia'us ; and the com- 

 parison would probably be closer with Streptospondylus ^ to 



